Table 3.19. Distribution of species status for the seven key salmonids by forest and range cluster. Estimates

represent the percent of subwatersheds for that species and status associated with each cluster defined in

the preliminary draft EISs.

Species Distributions by Cluster

Species Category

Bull trout

Present

Strong

Depressed

Westslope cutthroat trout

Present

Strong

Depressed

Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Present

Strong

Depressed

Redband trout

Present

Strong

Depressed

Steelhead trout

Strong

Depressed

Corridor

Stream-type chinook salmon

Strong

Depressed

Corridor

Ocean-type chinook salmon

Strong

Depressed

Corridor

Fringe Areas

Bull trout

Westslope cutthroat trout

Redband trout

Ocean-type chinook salmon

Forest Cluster

1

15.8

45.2

11.7

17.6

30.3

12.8

30.3

61.7

1.7

5.7

0.5

8.3

0

13.1

8.6

0

19.2

10.6

0

1.4

0

0

0

0

0

2

29.3

33.0

26.4

24.3

41.2

15.5

9.4

12.0

9.8

18.5

17.8

14.6

13.0

33.1

25.3

0

40.0

29.8

36.0

33.8

0

0

0

0

48.0

3

16.1

8.5

19.7

16.2

8.5

17.2

0

0

0

11.6

14.7

9.8

0

21.4

18.7

0

17.4

19.1

20.0

9.9

24.6

18.2

0

0

20.0

4

20.3

7.8

26.1

33.9

16.7

44.0

2.3

0.0

5.2

6.6

5.1

6.3

0

1.7

4.7

0

0.9

6.0

0.0

11.3

15.4

0

0

0

0

5

9.2

3.3

11.1

3.2

1.7

4.0

6.0

0.0

15.6

22.5

27.9

24.0

56.5

20.8

3.5

100

20.8

6.4

28.0

16.9

0

63.6

100

0

24.0

6

4.5

0.4

2.3

4.3

0.3

6.2

20.9

14.4

33.5

14.1

19.2

10.2

0

0.6

5.8

0

0.1

2.1

0

12.7

9.2

0

0

33.3

0

1

3.0

0.4

1.8

0.8

0

1.3

0

0

0

8.9

5.9

11.2

47.8

10.7

9.3

12.5

6.1

9.9

36.0

5.6

0

0

100

0

0

2

18.2

33.0

8.9

18.4

44.1

5.7

11.5

23.4

0.6

11.9

8.9

8.0

0

21.9

19.5

0

27.1

20.6

36.0

33.8

0

0

0

0

44.0

Range

3

31.1

20.7

37.3

28.0

12.9

33.9

12.4

19.6

7.5

28.9

33.7

25.6

0

28.7

14.4

50.0

30.7

13.8

16.0

0

20.0

81.8

0

0

0

Cluster

4

4.2

1.1

2.5

0.6

1.2

0.5

0

0

0

9.6

11.9

10.5

30.4

7.8

36.2

0

3.4

25.2

8.0

33.8

64.6

0

0

0

28.0

5

16.4

17.0

14.0

13.8

11.9

12.9

24.8

41.1

11.0

18.6

17.8

18.9

0

19.0

14.4

0

17.8

22.0

4.0

15.5

15.4

18.2

0

0

4.0

6

2.1

3.3

2.3

0

0

0

51.4

15.8

80.9

18.3

19.4

19.1

8.7

5.7

0

37.5

4.5

2.8

0

11.3

0

0

0

100

24.0

478 Aquatics
Table 3.20. Forest and range management activities and distributions of seven key salmonids. Estimates

represent the percentage of the species distribution for the specified status or category predicted to experience the activity per decade. Estimates are based on the allocation of activities by alternative in the preliminary draft EIS, and on the distribution and status of each species as defined in Lee and others (1996).

Forest Activity

Species Status Alt.

Bull trout

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fringe

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Westslope cutthroat trout

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

4.7

2.6

3.3

3.3

3.6

2.8

2.6

7.1

3.8

5.0

5.0

5.9

3.6

1.9

7.4

2.4

5.7

5.7

5.7

2.0

1.6

5.5

3.0

3.7

3.7

4.2

3.2

2.0

7.4

4.4

5.4

5.4

7.0

4.5

2.0

Thinning

2.1

1.8

2.4

3.6

2.6

3.3

1.6

3.2

2.6

4.2

5.5

4.7

5.0

1.8

3.7

3.1

5.3

5.7

5.7

5.3

3.1

2.3

2.0

2.8

4.2

3.0

4.0

1.5

3.4

2.9

5.0

5.9

5.3

5.5

1.6

Watershed

Restoration

1.5

3.6

3.6

4.9

3.7

3.9

1.5

1.5

2.9

2.9

4.6

3.2

3.8

1.5

1.2

1.7

1.7

3.3

3.3

3.3

1.2

1.5

3.5

3.2

5.2

3.5

3.9

1.5

1.5

2.6

2.6

4.3

2.7

3.8

1.5

Prescribed

Burning

2.5

2.5

6.4

9.3

4.5

7.0

3.2

2.4

2.4

5.0

8.3

5.1

7.1

4.6

2.0

2.0

2.9

7.6

5.7

7.6

2.9

2.5

2.5

6.1

9.1

4.8

7.0

3.6

2.5

2.5

4.5

7.9

4.4

7.1

5.5

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

7.8

10.6

9.5

10.6

10.5

11.8

12.1

5.4

9.2

8.4

9.2

9.1

10.2

10.7

7.9

14.7

13.6

14.7

14.7

16.0

16.0

8.6

10.3

9.6

10.3

10.3

11.1

11.2

4.4

7.7

6.9

7.7

7.6

8.6

8.7

Riparian

Restoration

0.9

0.9

16.0

28.7

8.9

21.1

2.5

0.8

0.8

20.5

25.4

8.4

11.7

2.6

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

7.9

7.9

1.2

0.8

0.8

10.0

26.7

5.7

21.9

1.3

0.7

0.7

17.9

20.6

6.1

8.1

0.8

Aquatics 471
Table 3.20 (continued)

Forest Activity

Species Status Alt.

Fringe

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Redband trout

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fringe

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

9.0

2.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

2.8

1.8

2.2

2.2

2.8

2.2

1.8

3.7

1.3

2.1

2.1

3.5

1.6

1.1

6.5

2.5

4.3

4.3

5.3

2.4

1.7

5.3

2.1

3.6

3.6

4.3

2.1

1.5

2.0

0.7

0.8

0.8

2.3

0.8

0.7

Thinning

4.5

4.5

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

4.5

1.3

1.3

2.1

2.5

1.8

2.5

1.3

1.3

1.3

3.3

3.5

2.6

3.5

1.2

2.7

2.3

4.6

5.5

4.5

5.1

2.1

2.3

2.0

3.6

4.3

3.6

4.1

1.8

0.5

0.5

2.3

2.3

1.5

2.3

0.5

Watershed

Restoration

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

1.3

3.2

3.2

3.5

3.2

3.2

1.3

0.8

1.1

1.1

1.7

1.4

1.5

0.8

1.3

2.1

2.1

3.5

2.8

2.9

1.3

1.1

1.9

1.9

3.1

2.5

2.7

1.1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Prescribed

Burning

2.5

2.5

2.5

10.0

7.0

10.0

2.5

2.2

2.2

5.5

8.4

3.4

6.2

2.8

1.4

1.4

1.8

4.5

3.6

4.2

2.8

2.1

2.1

3.6

7.4

5.7

6.8

3.9

1.8

1.8

3.3

6.5

4.5

5.9

3.0

0.8

0.8

0.8

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

3.0

9.0

16.0

7.2

12.0

9.5

12.0

12.0

14.9

16.0

2.9

7.9

7.4

7.9

7.9

8.6

13.2

6.1

11.8

10.7

11.8

11.4

13.0

15.6

5.4

10.8

9.6

10.8

10.1

12.1

14.9

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

Riparian

Restoration

1.2

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

29.4

38.0

22.2

30.8

7.0

1.0

1.0

31.3

31.5

29.0

29.2

25.6

1.2

1.2

27.2

37.1

21.4

24.7

12.7

1.1

1.1

24.5

35.5

23.1

26.1

12.0

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

472 Aquatics
Table 3.20 (continued)

Forest Activity

Species Status Alt.

Steel head trout

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Corridor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stream-type chinook salmon

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Corridor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

5.9

1.4

4.3

4.3

4.3

1.7

1.4

6.2

2.7

4.2

4.2

4.3

2.3

1.8

4.5

2.3

2.9

2.9

3.3

1.9

1.3

9.0

2.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

6.3

2.7

4.2

4.2

4.3

2.5

2.0

5.0

2.5

3.3

3.3

3.5

2.1

1.5

Thinning

2.7

2.7

4.2

4.5

4.2

4.5

2.7

2.7

2.0

3.3

4.8

3.8

4.3

2.0

1.8

1.2

2.3

3.6

2.6

3.1

0.0

4.5

4.5

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

4.5

2.6

2.1

3.2

4.8

3.6

4.4

2.1

2.1

1.5

2.5

3.9

2.9

3.4

2.1

Watershed

Restoration

1.0

1.4

1.4

3.2

2.8

2.8

1.0

1.4

3.0

3.0

4.6

3.6

3.6

1.4

1.0

2.3

0.0

3.3

2.4

2.5

1.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

1.5

3.4

3.4

5.1

3.9

3.9

1.5

1.1

2.6

2.9

3.8

2.8

2.9

1.1

Prescribed

Burning

1.7

1.7

2.3

7.0

4.9

6.6

1.7

2.3

2.3

5.3

8.3

5.7

7.0

3.3

1.7

1.7

0.0

5.8

4.1

4.8

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

10.0

7.0

10.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

5.9

9.3

6.0

7.5

3.3

1.9

1.9

5.1

6.6

4.4

5.4

3.1

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

2.6

7.8

7.8

7.8

5.0

7.8

13.9

7.4

12.0

10.8

12.0

11.3

13.3

15.0

6.2

10.8

9.9

0.0

10.2

11.8

15.0

6.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

11.8

12.5

16.0

8.1

12.1

11.0

12.1

11.7

13.4

14.3

6.3

10.9

9.6

12.4

10.3

12.4

15.1

Riparian

Restoration

1.0

1.0

4.2

33.0

33.0

33.0

15.4

1.1

1.1

20.7

35.6

17.0

25.1

6.1

1.1

1.1

11.7

35.6

23.2

30.3

14.4

1.2

1.2

33.4

38.0

19.6

19.6

15.0

1.1

1.1

20.6

34.1

12.8

22.8

4.0

1.1

1.1

15.4

35.8

23.2

30.8

11.4

Aquatics 473
Table 3.20 (continued)

Forest Activity

Species Status Alt.

Ocean-type Chinook salmon

Strong

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Depressed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Corridor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fringe

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

6.5

2.5

4.3

4.3

4.3

2.1

1.7

6.2

2.6

3.9

3.9

4.8

2.7

1.7

3.8

2.4

2.8

2.8

3.6

1.8

0.9

6.8

2.6

4.3

4.3

4.3

2.3

1.8

Thinning

2.7

2.1

3.4

5.0

3.9

4.5

2.1

2.4

2.1

3.8

5.1

3.8

4.8

1.8

1.8

1.1

2.6

3.2

2.9

2.6

0.7

2.7

2.1

3.3

5.2

3.8

4.7

2.1

Watershed

Restoration

1.3

2.7

2.7

4.4

3.4

3.4

1.3

1.3

2.4

2.4

4.1

2.8

3.1

1.3

0.7

1.2

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.6

0.7

1.4

3.1

3.1

5.1

3.7

3.7

1.4

Prescribed

Burning

2.1

2.1

4.6

7.8

5.9

6.7

3.0

2.1

2.1

4.2

7.6

5.4

6.5

3.7

1.1

1.1

2.1

3.2

2.5

3.2

3.2

2.3

2.3

5.4

8.6

6.4

7.2

3.2

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

8.6

12.6

12.4

12.6

10.5

12.9

16.0

7.4

11.4

10.4

11.4

11.0

12.5

16.0

3.8

9.5

8.7

9.5

9.5

10.5

14.6

8.7

12.1

11.8

12.1

12.1

12.4

16.0

Riparian

Restoration

1.2

1.2

8.6

38.0

18.9

32.1

4.1

1.2

1.2

11.0

38.0

25.6

38.0

17.8

1.1

1.1

13.0

34.8

28.1

28.1

22.9

1.2

1.2

11.5

38.0

21.8

38.0

20.3

We assumed that risks were greatest and benefits

least if activities were not clearly tied to the implementation of watershed/ecosystem analysis.

Watershed and riparian restoration activities are

more likely to be efficiently and effectively

focused if they are associated with a broad-scale

analysis and are not merely mitigation tacked

onto site- and project-specific activities. We also

assumed risks were greater if the associated riparian conservation strategy was inadequate as considered in the first step of this analysis.

We recognize the potential benefits of prescribed

fire in restoring the structure and function of terrestrial ecosystems, but were not able to evaluate

species benefits in our analyses. We generally

assumed the effects of prescribed fire activities to

be benign.

In our discussion of alternatives, we considered

the magnitude of an activity relative to the range

of activities projected across a species distribution

and among alternatives. For example, combined

474 Aquatics
timber and thinning activities were considered low

when less than 5 percent of the species/status distribution was potentially influenced per decade,

and high when 10 percent or more was affected.

The allocation of activities in sensitive areas was

also considered. For example, high levels of timber

harvest and low levels of restoration in the fringe

distribution of species (largely represented by

depressed and highly-fragmented populations)

were viewed negatively.

Framework for Judging

Alternatives

We used a series of eleven questions to explore the

potential effect of each alternative on focal fish

species (table 3.21). Questions 1 to 5 were

addressed on a species-by-species basis. For Questions 6 to 11, however, the evaluation team decided that the answers applied to all species. We used

the discussion generated by each question to formulate the findings discussed in the next section,

but did not attempt to systematically craft an

answer to each question for each species that

reflected the range of opinions expressed in the

discussion.

Findings by Species

We begin each of the following sections with a

brief overview of the current status of each

salmonid species, as described by Lee and others

(in press). We then provide a synoptic report on

the expected effect of each alternative, followed by

a brief comparative summary of all the alternatives.

Table 3.21. General questions used to guide the discussion of possible effects from each of the seven proposed alternatives on widely-distributed salmonids.

Does the alternative:

(1) Conserve core areas of (relatively) high population density within the species' range?

(2) Identify at-risk areas and use those areas to prioritize restoration and management prescriptions?

(3) Decrease fragmentation of aquatic habitats and maintain/restore corridors as critical components of connectivity among populations?

(4) Maintain, protect, and/or restore proper functioning conditions of riparian habitats within the range of this

species?

(5) Address other specific threats to this species?

(6) Emphasize the uncertainty of restoration treatments and provide a framework for adaptive management as

better information is available to judge treatment results?

(7) Attempt to minimize the effects of introduced species?

(8) Adequately protect aquatic habitats within the range of this species from increased sedimentation associated with land-use activities?

(9) Maintain, protect, and/or restore water quality within the range of this species?

(10) Maintain, protect, and/or restore water quantity within the range of this species?

(11) Address the importance of non-Federal lands to conservation and restoration strategies?

Aquatics 475
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

Bull trout currently occur in approximately 45

percent of the subwatersheds comprising the

potential historical range. Although they are distributed broadly throughout the potential range

and the assessment area, the current distribution is

patchy. Bull trout are classified as strong in 6 percent of the potential range. Approximately 50 percent of those strong populations are contained

within or associated with wilderness areas. Many

remaining populations are believed to be fragmented and relatively isolated, either through the

loss of migration corridors or the disruption of

suitable habitat networks (Lee and others, in

press). These populations may be at risk even with

no further habitat loss. Because approximately 93

percent of the strong subwatersheds and 76 percent of the depressed-status subwatersheds are on

Federal land (table 3.12), and because bull trout

appear to be particularly sensitive to land-use

effects (Lee and others, in press), future management of FS- and BLM-administered lands will

play a major role in the trends and distribution of

bull trout within the assessment area.

Alternative 1—Under Alternative 1, we expect

bull trout populations to decline throughout

much of their current range. The strong populations associated with wilderness areas may be

influenced relatively little, but the remaining distributions will be subject to moderate and high

levels of timber harvest and thinning activities

(table 3.20), and new road construction. The

number of subwatersheds with low-road densities

or no roads that support spawning and rearing are

projected to decline, while the number of subwatersheds with high road densities should

increase (table 3.11). Results of the classification

tree analysis suggest a decline in the frequency of

both strong and depressed populations (tables 3.3

and 3.4). Without adequate protection of riparian

function (described in "Step 1" section of this

chapter) and with relatively limited watershed

restoration (table 3.20), we have little reason to

believe that these negative trends will be mitigated. Declines in the status and distribution of bull

trout should be most pronounced within areas

which emphasize commodity production; these

areas include portions of the Blue Mountains, the

Southern Cascades, and the Upper Klamath

reporting units of the EEIS planning area, and the

Northern Glaciated Mountains, Lower Clark Fork

and Upper Clark Fork units in the UCRB planning area. Continued declines in the fringe distributions are anticipated because activities in that

area are expected to be as high or higher than in

other portions of the range, and because these

parts of the range are not represented by any

strong populations. The loss of the fringe populations could represent a disproportionate loss of

genetic variability for this species. Bull trout are

most likely to persist within the Central Idaho

Mountains, the South Fork Flathead subbasin

with a conservation emphasis, and in wilderness

areas in the Northern Cascades.

Alternative 2—Bull trout are provided increased

protection under the Inland Native Fish Strategy

(INFISH) (1995), the implementation of ecosystem analysis, and relatively low or moderate levels

of timber harvest and thinning activity (table

3.20) under Alternative 2. Much of the high

quality habitat associated with strong populations

in priority watersheds should be protected by the

standards that apply therein. Increased watershed

restoration should also reduce the risk to some

strong populations. The projected distribution of

road densities associated with bull trout habitats

(table 3.11), however, suggests little increase in

the frequency of subwatersheds with no roads or

very low road densities. The models also predict a

minor decline in occurrence of strong, or of

strong and depressed populations (tables 3.3 and

3.5). More limited watershed restoration, a relative lack of riparian restoration activity in the

fringe portion of the existing range (table 3.20),

and a production-conservation emphasis in the

rangelands associated with the fringe distribution

suggest potential decline of these populations.

With the emphasis on bull trout in the INFISH

conservation strategy, we expect bull trout to persist throughout much of the current distribution

of strong populations. We do not anticipate extensive rebuilding of habitat networks, however.

478 Aquatics
Because of the existing fragmentation and isolation of some populations, particularly those outside central Idaho and in the fringe distributions,

some populations may face elevated risk of extinction through natural disturbance events, even

without further habitat loss.

Alternative 3—Under Alternative 3, much of

the current distribution of strong populations of

bull trout will likely be conserved. It is unclear

whether significant rebuilding of the population

will occur, however, and we are concerned that

the fringe distribution will be further eroded.

Road-density reductions are projected across the

bull trout distributions (table 3.11), and model

predictions suggest an increasing trend in the

occurrence of strong subwatersheds (tables 3.3

and 3.6). Because of the emphasis on ecosystem

analysis in Category 1 (see footnote 4 for definition) and strong subwatersheds, and a moderate

level of watershed restoration in the strong distribution, we anticipate that the core of the bull trout

distribution associated with the Central Idaho

Mountains and eastern fringe of the Northern

Glaciated Mountains in the UCRB area, and the

Northern Cascades and Blue Mountains of the

EEIS area will be conserved if not strengthened.

Model projections, however, suggest a decline in

the complete distribution (strong and depressed)

that implies further declines in some portions of

the range (tables 3.3 and 3.6). Because ecosystem

analysis will not be required in depressed subwatersheds outside of Category 1 subbasins or priority areas, a general decline rather than rebuilding of habitat networks outside these core areas

may occur. The risks could be exaggerated in the

fringe distribution areas because of relatively high

timber and thinning activity, and little watershed

restoration (table 3.20). Relatively intensive riparian restoration activities could provide some benefits for bull trout populations in the rangeland

portions of the fringe distributions. However,

benefits are more likely in corridors than in

spawning and rearing habitats. Because critical

spawning and initial rearing habitats for bull trout

tend to be limited to higher-elevation portions of

the occupied watershed, particularly on the southern limits of the range associated with the fringe,

activities on the forestlands are likely to be far

more important compared to rangelands.

Alternative 4—The core distributions of bull

trout associated with Category 1 watersheds will

likely be conserved and perhaps strengthened

under this alternative. Some rebuilding in more

fragmented or depressed portions of the range is

likely, but large improvements are not expected.

The active restoration associated with this objective provides a relatively high level of watershed

restoration and road-density reduction. Roaddensity projections show positive trends associated

with both the strong and complete distribution of

bull trout populations (table 3.11). Model predictions also suggest a relatively strong positive trend

in the occurrence of strong subwatersheds (tables

3.3 and 3.7). Although timber and thinning activities are relatively high in the subbasins supporting

strong populations, watershed restoration is also

increased (table 3.20). Because of the emphasis on

ecosystem analysis in Category 1 and stronghold

watersheds, there should be an opportunity to prioritize forest and watershed restoration efforts in

areas representing the least risk and greatest benefit for important bull trout populations. Projected

and anticipated trends on the fringe and less

prominent portions of the bull trout distributions

are less encouraging. Model predictions suggest a

moderate decline in the occurrence of the complete distribution of spawning and rearing subwatersheds (strong and depressed) (tables 3.3 and

3.7). Timber harvest and thinning activities are

also anticipated to be higher in the depressed and

fringe portions of the distribution than in the

strong subwatersheds (table 3.20). Although

watershed restoration activity is still projected to

be relatively high in these latter subbasins, the

lack of ecosystem analysis outside the Category 1

subbasins or strong subwatersheds suggests that

prioritization of activities may not effectively mitigate the inherent risks associated with increased

forest restoration and timber harvest activity.

Alternative 5—Under Alternative 5, we anticipate declines in the distribution and status of bull

trout populations in major portions of both the

Aquatics 47?
EEIS and UCRB areas. The core of the bull trout

distributions associated with the Category 1 and

aquatics-emphasis watersheds should fare well

under this alternative. A substantial amount of

wilderness, the emphasis on ecosystem analysis,

and restoration focused to benefit strong populations (see Alternative 4), will likely sustain and

perhaps expand the distribution of bull trout

within these select subbasins (Category 1, and

Forest Clusters 1 and 2). The emphasis on commodity production and the lack of ecosystem

analysis in major portions of the species range,

however, suggest that other populations will not

do well. Although activity projections imply moderate or high levels of watershed restoration under

this alternative (table 3.20), we anticipate inadequate protection or restoration of riparian function and aquatic ecological processes where riparian protection standards are relaxed (see "Step 1"

section of this chapter). The model predictions of

a general decline in the occurrence of both the

strong and combined distributions (tables 3.3 and

3.8) are not likely to be mitigated in areas with

increased activity and road construction. We

anticipate a definite decline in the distributions in

the northern Idaho and western Montana portions of the UCRB area and in the Blue Mountains and Upper Klamath regions of the EEIS

area. The Upper Klamath represents a major portion of the fringe distribution of this species;

losses here could mean a disproportionate loss of

genetic variability for bull trout.

Alternative 6—Alternative 6 would probably

conserve and perhaps strengthen the core of the

bull trout distribution in strong populations.

Decreasing trends in road density are predicted

within the strong and depressed subwatersheds

(table 3.11). The models also predict a relatively

strong positive trend in the occurrence of strong

populations (tables 3.3 and 3.9). Projected timber

and thinning activities within the strong distributions are moderate, but an emphasis on watershed

restoration is retained (table 3.20). The emphasis

on ecosystem analysis within Category 1 and

strong population areas and the additional emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management

implied by this alternative also suggest a substantial opportunity to focus management activities in

a manner that represents the least possible risk for

many of these populations. We are unsure about

the likely trends in bull trout populations in the

remaining portions of the distribution. Subwatersheds supporting depressed populations of bull

trout outside the Category 1 subbasins will not

necessarily receive the consideration afforded by

ecosystem analysis. Although some erosion of the

current distribution of depressed and fringe populations might occur, lower levels of timber harvest

and thinning activity and the moderate emphasis

on watershed restoration in both the depressed

and fringe distributions might allow successful

restoration of some subwatersheds (table 3.20).

Road density projections suggest substantial road

reductions may occur in some of the depressed

subwatersheds (table 3.11), while model projections suggest essentially no change in the combined distributions (tables 3.3 and 3.9).

Alternative 7—Alternative 7 provides a substantial opportunity for conservation and restoration

of bull trout status and distributions throughout

the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Decreasing

trends in road density are predicted within both

the strong and depressed subwatersheds (table

3.11). Although watershed restoration activities

are low, timber harvest and thinning activities are

also low (table 3.20). Model predictions represent

the strongest positive trends observed across any

of the alternatives for both the strong and combined distributions (tables 3.3 and 3.10).

Important caveats to these apparent positive

responses include the risks represented by the lack

of both forest and watershed restoration under

this alternative. The legacy of historical management activities may place systems without active

restoration at risk. These risks are likely to be

most important in the more fragmented portions

of the range where bull trout persist, and in relatively small and isolated remnants of the historical

habitat network that will not be included in

reserves. This would be a particularly relevant

concern for the fringe portions of this species'

range. We anticipate that the projected response

in the core of the species distribution associated

with strong subwatersheds would not be substan478 Aquatics
dally slowed by these problems. It is unclear

whether these risks are enough to negate the

apparent positive trend in the more depressed portions of the range.

Summary—Bull trout populations appear to be

depressed throughout most of their current distribution. Despite the relatively poor condition, they

retain a wide distribution. An important part of

the remaining strong distribution is found within

wilderness areas around the Basin and will likely

persist under most alternatives. The largest, most

secure portion of the distribution is found in the

Central Idaho Mountains. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6,

and 7 would likely conserve the cores of the bull

trout distribution while Alternatives 1 and 5

would not (table 3.22). None of the alternatives

provide for extensive rebuilding in the more

depressed parts of the range. Alternatives 3, 4, 6,

and 7 provides some potential for active restoration that could benefit depressed bull trout populations, but it is not clear that the analysis and

planning necessary to effectively and efficiently

prioritize those efforts will exist. None of the

alternatives provides strong protection or emphasis for restoration of what may be a particularly

important fringe distribution. Furthermore, none

of the alternatives provides strong guidance or an

opportunity for securing or restoring migratory

corridors that exist outside of Federal lands, which

may seriously isolate some populations.

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus

clarki lewisi)

Westslope cutthroat trout are broadly distributed

in the northern portion of the UCRB planning

area, but are restricted to the Northern Cascades

and a small portion of the Blue Mountains in the

EEIS planning area. The latter area represents a

relatively isolated group that is considered in the

fringe of the distribution. This subspecies of cutthroat trout remains one of the most widely distributed salmonids in the assessment area; it is still

found in approximately 85 percent of the potential historical range. Although they persist widely,

most populations have declined in status. Strong

populations are believed to exist in about 22 percent of the potential historical range, 40 percent

of which is associated with wilderness. Introgression and competition with introduced

salmonids, fishing, and habitat disruption are

believed to be important factors contributing to

the depressed condition of most populations.

Road density and land management classification

were useful variables in classification and prediction of westslope cutthroat trout distributions

(Lee and others, in press). The broad distribution

of westslope cutthroat trout within the historical

range and the persistence of populations in some

heavily managed watersheds demonstrate that

local extinctions have not been widespread.

Although populations may persist in the face of

extensive, human-caused disturbance, many exist

only in low numbers or as restricted, resident populations that reflect little of the diversity and production of historical populations. Because approximately 70 percent of the current distribution and

93 percent of the remaining strong distribution

are found on FS- and BLM-administered lands

(table 3.13), forest and rangeland management is

likely to play an important role in the future distribution and status of this subspecies.

Alternative 1—Westslope cutthroat trout will

likely persist throughout much of their current

distribution under this alternative, but a continued decline in status throughout a major part of

that distribution is anticipated. Some of the more

restricted populations may disappear. High levels

of timber harvest and thinning activities are projected throughout a major portion of the species

range, with little emphasis on watershed or riparian restoration (table 3.20). Road densities are

expected to increase across the species' range (table

3.11). The models predict a relatively strong

declining trend in the occurrence of strong populations, and a lesser negative trend in the complete

distribution (tables 3.3 and 3.4). Current Forest

plans are likely to provide a variable level of protection for these populations. The general emphasis on timber production throughout much of the

range, a lack of mid-scale analysis to focus activities and minimize risks in particularly important

or sensitive populations, and the general lack of a

consistent riparian protection strategy suggest that

Aquatics 479
the projected declines are unlikely to be mitigated

(see "Step 1" section of this chapter). Because an

important core of the remaining strong westslope

cutthroat trout populations is associated with

wilderness areas in the UCRB and to a lesser

extent in the North Cascades portion of the EEIS

planning areas, some strong populations will persist across the analysis area. Because westslope cutthroat trout tend to persist even in some heavily

managed areas, they are likely to persist throughout much of their current distribution. More populations, however, may be limited to remnant status dominated primarily by resident forms, low

densities, and potentially high levels of genetic

introgression. A decline in status seems most likely in the timber-emphasis areas of the UCRB area,

predominantly in northern Idaho and Montana.

The fringe distribution in the Blue Mountains of

the EEIS area may also be particularly vulnerable.

Because relatively few productive subwatersheds

remain in this area, further losses could represent

an important loss of genetic variability for the

subspecies.

Alternative 2—The INFISH strategy, focused in

priority watersheds and low and moderate landdisturbing activities, could protect much of the

core of the westslope cutthroat trout distribution

under this alternative. We do not anticipate

important rebuilding, but distributions and status

should not decline dramatically outside of the

species fringe in the EEIS planning area. In general, we anticipate that strong populations associated with wilderness and a conservation emphasis in

the Central Idaho Mountains and northeastern

Montana of the UCRB area, and in the North

Cascades of the EEIS area will maintain their current condition. Increased activity, including both

commodity production and increased efforts for

restoration, may produce mixed results for the

remaining populations scattered throughout much

of northern Idaho and Montana in the UCRB.

Road-density projections suggest little change in

the overall distributions associated with strong

subwatersheds outside of wilderness (table 3.11),

but the models predict a moderate, declining

trend in the frequency of occurrence for these

same areas (tables 3.3 and 3.5). An emphasis on

riparian protection associated with INFISH standards could mitigate this trend in priority watersheds. Because westslope cutthroat seem to persist

even with moderate levels of disturbance, a significant opportunity for restoration of strong populations exists throughout much of the range. The

moderate level of restoration associated with the

distribution of strong subwatersheds (table 3.20)

could work to secure watersheds that are at risk

and might rebuild adjacent depressed systems. We

are less optimistic that important restoration will

occur in depressed portions of the range that are

not associated with strong populations or priority

subbasins. Relatively little watershed restoration

activity is projected in association with the

depressed or fringe distributions for this subspecies (table 3.20), and INFISH riparian protection standards would not result in rapid recovery

of watershed conditions where disturbances have

been extensive. Although a rapid loss of populations is not anticipated in the depressed and fringe

portions of the range, any erosion of the fringe

could be an important loss of genetic variability

for the subspecies.

Alternative 3—Alternative 3 should conserve

and perhaps slightly expand the distribution of

subwatersheds supporting strong populations of

westslope cutthroat trout. We do not anticipate

strong rebuilding in the more fragmented and

depressed portions of the subspecies range,

although road-density projections show overall

decreasing trends in both the strong and depressed

distributions (table 3.11). Model predictions also

suggest a positive trend in the frequency of strong

populations (tables 3.3 and 3.6). Although timber

harvest and thinning activities are moderate in the

subbasins supporting strong subwatersheds, moderate watershed and riparian restoration (table

3.20) could secure some at-risk systems. Ecosystem analysis in Category 1 and all strong subwatersheds, and INFISH riparian standards,

should protect sensitive watersheds. Those analyses should also provide an opportunity to prioritize timber harvest and restoration activities in a

manner that secures or expands distributions by

focusing activities in areas with the least risk

and greatest potential gain through restoration.

480 Aquatics
Table 3.22. Projected effects of the seven proposed alternatives on bull trout.

Will the Alternative:

1 . Conserve strong populations in the

central or core portions of the species'

range?

2. Prevent declines in habitats or

populations throughout the entire

species' range?

— if "no", where are declines most likely

to occur (on FS/BLM lands)?

3. Help rebuild depressed populations by

restoring habitats?

— if "yes", where?

What is the role of factors other than

habitat?

Alternative

1

No

No

Outside

wilderness

and other

protected

areas

No

Alternative

2

Yes

No

Forest

Clusters 3

and 4, and

fringe in

rangeland

Yes

INFISH

1

Priority

watersheds

Alternative

3

Yes

No

Mixed results

across

species'

range

Yes

Forest

Clusters 2, 4,

and 5

Alternative

4

Yes

Uncertain

Category 2

and 3

Yes

Mixed results

across

species'

range

Alternativ

5

No

No

Category 

and 3;

commodit

emphasi

areas

Yes

Category 

Forest Clus

1 and 2

Competition and introgression with introduced fishes can seriously threaten de

degraded habitats, and may undermine efforts to rebuild populations in good hab

populations may risk extirpations even with no further h

I

O

'(INFISH) Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995. Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim Strategies for managing f

Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain, N

[irregular pagination].
We anticipate that any gains will be most prominent in the areas associated with the conservation

and restoration emphasis in the Central Idaho

Mountains and northeastern Montana within the

UCRB planning area. We are less optimistic that

positive changes in status will occur in the

depressed subwatersheds for westslope cutthroat

trout outside of the Category 1 subbasins. A positive trend in road densities (table 3.11) and a

small but a positive trend in model predictions

for the entire distribution suggests that there will

not be extensive erosion of the current distribution. Increased timber harvest and thinning

activity without a comparable increase in watershed restoration, however, suggests that large net

gains are unlikely. For depressed populations,

INFISH standards should provide protection but

are unlikely to lead to rapid recovery in watershed and habitat conditions. No gain and some

erosion of depressed populations can be anticipated in the fringe distribution associated with

the Blue Mountains in the EEIS area because of

relatively high levels of timber harvest and thinning, and low levels of watershed restoration

(table 3.20).

Alternative 4—Alternative 4 proposes increased

active management. This suggests both risks and

important opportunities for management that will

influence the distribution of westslope cutthroat

trout. We anticipate that the core distributions of

strong populations will be conserved and potentially strengthened. Moderate levels of timber harvest but also some of the highest allocations of

watershed restoration are projected for the currently strong subwatersheds (table 3.20). The relative magnitude of watershed restoration coupled

with implied protection in ecosystem analysis suggests an opportunity to secure important, but

potentially at-risk systems. Decreasing trends in

road densities (table 3.11) and model predictions

for the occurrence of strong subwatersheds (tables

3.3 and 3.7) in Forest Clusters 2, 3, and 4 add

support. The requirement for ecosystem analysis

in Category 1 and strong subwatersheds provides

a mechanism to prioritize restoration and to focus

timber harvest and thinning activities where they

pose the least risk. Ecosystem analysis and extensive restoration might also allow an extension of

some strong populations by focusing work in systems with the greatest potential to respond.

Conservation and strengthening of the depressed

distribution outside Category 1 subbasins may be

less likely. Although moderate levels of watershed

and riparian restoration are expected in subbasins

supporting depressed and fringe populations, high

levels of timber harvest and thinning activity are

also predicted for these systems (table 3.20). The

riparian protection measures associated with this

alternative should conserve much of the distribution, but restoration of depressed populations will

be less likely without the planning and prioritization of activities implied by ecosystem analysis.

Because that analysis is not required outside the

Category 1 and strong systems, it is not likely to

occur throughout the depressed or fringe distribution of this subspecies. Implementation will produce varied results in restoration that we cannot

anticipate. The potential for important gains is

present, but we are uncertain whether they will be

realized. A failure to secure or strengthen the limited fringe distribution within the EEIS area could

result in an important loss of genetic variability

for this subspecies.

Alternative 5—Under Alternative 5, we anticipate both positive and negative effects on the distribution and status of westslope cutthroat trout

across the assessment area. Many of the strong

subwatersheds for westslope cutthroat trout are

associated with Category 1 subbasins outside of

the areas proposed for timber or livestock emphasis in this alternative. Where ecosystem analysis is

required, it should produce results similar to

Alternative 4. In that respect, we expect

Alternative 5 to conserve and perhaps strengthen

portions of the core of the range. In contrast,

important areas that support both strong and

depressed westslope cutthroat are found in the

proposed timber and livestock emphasis subbasins, where declines in status are expected. High

levels of timber harvest and thinning throughout

much of northern Idaho and western Montana

increase the risk to the remaining strong popula482 Aquatics
tions in that region. Although moderate levels of

watershed restoration activities are implied, we

anticipate that they will be less effective than the

ecosystem analysis and more conservative riparian

protection measures proposed under other alternatives and conservation emphasis areas (see "Step

1" section of this chapter). The predicted loss of

strong subwatersheds is likely to be focused in this

region and may not be mitigated through the less

conservative protection measures. We expect little

restoration of the already depressed populations

for much of the range. The road projections do

not show decreasing trends (table 3.11) and the

model projections for the complete distribution

suggest no change (tables 3.3 and 3.8). High levels of timber harvest and thinning activities are

not compensated by similar increases in watershed

restoration in either the depressed or fringe distributions (table 3.20). Because much of the

depressed and all of the fringe distributions are

associated with a timber and range management

emphasis and less conservative riparian protection,

we do not expect any substantial improvement in

habitat conditions. Some erosion of the current

distribution might occur without active watershed

restoration, especially in some of the more seriously restricted populations.

Alternative 6—As in several of the preceding

alternatives, we expect cores of strong subwatersheds for westslope cutthroat trout to be conserved and potentially strengthened under this

alternative. Road density projections show positive

trends in the strong subwatersheds (table 3.11)

and model projections suggest a moderate increasing trend as well (tables 3.3 and 3.9). The projection of moderate timber and thinning activities

and moderate levels of watershed restoration suggest an opportunity to focus work to secure at-risk

systems and perhaps rebuild those with important

potential. The requirement for ecosystem analysis

throughout the Category 1 and all strong subwatersheds and the additional emphasis on adaptive management implied in this alternative provide a mechanism that should encourage progress.

We remain uncertain about the trends for

depressed populations outside the Category 1 subbasins. Subwatersheds that do not support strong

populations may not have the benefit of ecosystem analysis. A moderate allocation of watershed

restoration associated with the distribution of

depressed populations provides an important

opportunity for restoration of some populations.

Positive changes in road densities (table 3.11) and

predictions of modest but increasing trends in the

complete distribution (tables 3.3 and 3.9) also

suggest restoration of some populations. An effective and efficient prioritization of restoration

activities may not occur, however, without the

commitment to ecosystem analysis. This alternative also appears to provide the best opportunity

for restoration of the depressed populations associated with the fringe of the range. Limited timber harvest activities and a strong emphasis on

watershed and riparian restoration associated with

these subwatersheds (table 3.20) provides a

unique opportunity to protect these important

fringe populations.

Alternative 7—Our analyses support positive

trends in the distribution and status for westslope

cutthroat trout under Alternative 7. There are

strong positive trends projected in road densities

(table 3.11) and similarly optimistic predictions in

the occurrence of strong populations from the

models (tables 3.3 and 3.10). These patterns,

together with relatively low levels of land disturbing activities in strong subwatersheds, suggest that

the core of strong populations throughout the

assessment area should be conserved and strengthened under this alternative. These patterns suggest

benefits for depressed populations as well, but the

lack of active watershed restoration makes us less

certain about those gains. Much of the depressed

distribution for westslope cutthroat trout is associated with moderately and heavily roaded watersheds (table 3.11). Although strict riparian protection standards should minimize further degradation in these systems, many watersheds may not

recover without active road obliteration or other

efforts to restore the watershed, hydrologic, and

riparian processes needed to create and maintain

complex and productive habitats.

Aquatics 483
Summary—Westslope cutthroat trout are likely

to persist throughout most of their current distribution under any of the alternatives. The distribution and status of healthy populations, however,

could be strongly influenced by the management

associated with the range of alternatives. We

would anticipate further decline in the status of

the species under Alternative 1. Although Alternative 5 would likely conserve much of the core

of strong populations in the current range, we

would expect declines of healthy populations in

the UCRB area under this alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 all appear likely to conserve

most of the strong populations across the assessment area (table 3.23). Alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 7

may offer some potential for strengthening those

cores through expanded watershed restoration

and the prioritization of restoration and conservation activities through ecosystem analysis and/or

the reduction of land-disturbing activities. We do

not anticipate restoration of many currently

depressed populations under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Increased emphasis on active restoration under

Alternatives 4 and 6 provides an opportunity for

some progress toward restoring depressed populations. A lack of commitment to the analysis necessary to effectively focus and prioritize conservation and restoration efforts, however, may limit

that potential. None of the alternatives assure

conservation and restoration of the depressed

populations associated with the fringe of the subspecies range in the EEIS planning area.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri)

Yellowstone cutthroat trout have the narrowest

distribution of any of the key salmonids, having

formerly occupied about 8 percent of the Basin.

Their range is restricted to the UCRB planning

area in the Snake River drainage upstream from

Shoshone Falls, Idaho. Yellowstone cutthroat trout

currently persist in about 66 percent of the potential historical range. Despite their narrow distribution, the species was judged to support the largest

proportion of strong populations of any key

salmonid. Within the potential historical range,

32 percent of the populations were listed as

strong. Introgression with introduced rainbow

trout and cutthroat trout poses serious threats,

however, and may weaken some populations identified as strong.

Management of FS- and BLM-administered lands

is key to the survival of Yellowstone cutthroat

trout; 57 percent of strong populations and 48

percent of depressed populations occur on these

lands (table 3.14). An additional 13 percent of the

strong populations occur within Teton National

Park, Wyoming. A total of 35 percent of the

strong populations are within designated wilderness or National Parks. The current range of

Yellowstone cutthroat trout includes both forest

and rangelands. Activities in both land types will

affect the species' persistence.

Alternative 1—Management under Alternative 1

will likely contribute to declines in Yellowstone

cutthroat trout outside of designated wilderness

areas and National Park Service-administered

lands. Although individual Forest plans may provide some levels of site-specific protection and

restoration for important local stocks, this alternative lacks a consistent conservation and restoration

approach. Populations outside of National Parks

and designated wilderness will be affected by

increased timber harvest, thinning, and road construction (table 3.20). The number of subwatersheds with high road densities is expected to

increase (table 3.11). Models predict a decline in

the species distribution and in strong populations

(tables 3.3 and 3.4), especially in the Palisades and

Salt River subbasins. Very little watershed restoration is planned under this alternative. Within

rangelands, Alternative 1 provides little improvement in livestock management and very little

planned riparian restoration (table 3.20). Declines

will likely be most pronounced in areas managed

most intensively for timber and range commodity

production.

484 Aquatics
Table 3.23. Projected effects of the seven proposed alternatives on westslope cutthroat trout.

Will the Alternative:

1 . Conserve strong populations in the

central or core portions of the species'

range?

2. Prevent declines in habitats or

populations throughout the entire

species' range?

— if "no", where are declines most likely

to occur (on FS/BLM lands)?

3. Help rebuild depressed populations by

restoring habitats?

— if "yes", where?

What is the role of factors other than

habitat?

Alternative

1

No

No

Outside

wilderness

and other

protected

areas

No

Alternative

2

Yes

No

Outside

INFISH

1

Priority

watersheds;

Forest Clusters

3, 4, and 5

No

Alternative

3

Yes

No

Category 2

and 3; Forest

Clusters 3

(western MT)

and 4, and

Upper Clark

Fork

Yes

Forest

Cluster 2

and some

of 4

Alternative

4

Yes

No

Category 2

and 3;

Western

MT

Yes

Category 1 ;

Forest

Clusters 2,

3, and 4

Alternativ

5

No

No

Category 

and 3;

commodit

emphasi

areas

No

Competition and introgression with introduced fishes can seriously threaten de

degraded habitats, and may undermine efforts to rebuild populat

.Q

I

O

cn

'(INFISH) Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995. Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim Strategies for managing 

Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain, N

[irregular pagination].
Alternative 2—Alternative 2 will likely result in

continued declines in Yellowstone cutthroat trout

outside of designated wilderness areas and

National Park Service-administered lands.

Although some increased protection of watersheds

may be afforded, land-disturbing activities will

continue in important core areas and there is minimal emphasis on restoration of degraded areas.

Increased protection is afforded under the application of INFISH guidelines that would require

watershed analysis if standards were to be altered.

Important core areas are not clearly identified

under this alternative. Land-disturbing activities

including harvest and thinning are relatively low

(table 3.20), and minimal changes in road densities are expected (table 3.11). Models sensitive to

road densities predict no change in the probability

of populations (tables 3.3 and 3.5). The alternative identifies riparian areas and landslide-prone

areas, but at-risk populations or habitats that may

require added emphasis are not identified. There

is little emphasis on restoration of depressed habitats. For depressed populations in rangelands,

there is a high emphasis on livestock production,

a low emphasis on riparian restoration, and moderate increases in livestock management (table

3.20). Consequently, currently degraded habitats

may be degraded further and other areas may not

receive the restoration effort needed to reverse

population declines.

Alternative 3—It is uncertain whether Alternative 3 will improve overall conditions for

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, although most

important core areas should be protected. This

alternative identifies important core areas by listing subbasins that support important strongholds

under a Category 1 designation, and it applies

emphasis to other strongholds outside Category 1

areas. There is little emphasis on prioritization of

restoration in degraded areas. Similar to Alternative 2, some increased protection is afforded under

the application of INFISH guidelines that would

require watershed analysis for standards to be

altered. Minor changes in road densities are anticipated (table 3.11) and the model predicts virtually no change in the occurrence of populations

except for a small improvement in the Palisades

subbasin (tables 3.3 and 3.6). Although thinning

is projected in Clusters 5 and 6 as part of this

alternative, most of this activity will be in forest

types other than the cold forest which dominates

the range of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Within

rangelands, riparian restoration is increased,

livestock management improves moderately, and

there are small Animal Unit Month (AUM)

reductions for depressed populations

(table 3.20).

Alternative 4—Alternative 4 should adequately

protect core areas for Yellowstone cutthroat trout

and provide modest improvement in depressed

areas through watershed and riparian restoration.

This alternative identifies important core areas by

designating Category 1 subbasins that support

important strongholds, and emphasizes other

strongholds outside Category 1 areas. Road densities decrease in the more highly roaded subwatersheds within the range of depressed populations,

and do not increase in watersheds supporting

strong populations (table 3.11). The model predicts improved probabilities of all populations and

strong populations in the Palisades, Salt, Lower

Henrys, and Portneuf subbasins (tables 3.3 and

3.7). Thinning is projected in Clusters 5 and 6 as

part of this alternative, again most of which will

be outside the range of Yellowstone cutthroat

trout. Within depressed populations in rangelands, restoration is emphasized in Range Cluster

6, livestock management improves moderately,

and there are small AUM reductions (table 3.20).

Alternative 5—Alternative 5 is expected to exacerbate declines in the overall status of Yellowstone

cutthroat trout in commodity-emphasis areas.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout stocks overlap commodity-emphasis areas and will be subject to

extensive land disturbance from timber harvest

and livestock. Core areas outside of commodityemphasis areas will be managed identically to

Alternative 4. Areas with high road density would

increase with this alternative (table 3.11) and the

model predicts reductions in the distribution of

the species and in strong populations (tables 3.3

48S Aquatics
and 3.8). High levels of harvest and thinning

occur, especially in depressed population areas

(table 3.20). Within commodity-emphasis areas,

standards provide minimal protection of riparian

areas, minimal ecosystem analysis, and there is no

process to address cumulative watershed effects

(see "Step 1" section).

Alternative 6—This alternative protects most

core areas and applies a conservative and adaptive

approach to restoration that should benefit

Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Similar to Alternative

4, this alternative identifies most but not all

important core areas by designating Category 1

subbasins that support important strongholds and

emphasizing strongholds outside Category. 1 areas.

Timber harvest levels are low in all key areas, so

risks are minimized. Road densities are reduced in

some of the more highly roaded areas (table 3.11),

which increases the likelihood of populations persisting in the Palisades, Lower Henrys, and

Portneuf subbasins (tables 3.3 and 3.9). This

alternative has a system of RMAs with stronger

requirements for ecosystem analysis and whose

widths are adjusted by slope. In rangelands,

Alternative 6 has a moderate increase in livestock

management and a large increase in riparian

restoration (table 3.20).

Alternative 7—This alternative provides a system

of reserves to conserve important core areas that, if

extensive, would benefit Yellowstone cutthroat

trout. Our analysis of Alternative 7 is incomplete

because the EIS teams did not identify reserves

within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which

covers much of the range of Yellowstone cutthroat

trout. We might assume that such reserves would

build on existing National Parks and wilderness

areas that harbor much of the core of the distribution. This alternative includes a combination of

RHCAs, requirements for ecosystem analysis, and

a cumulative-effects process that should protect

core areas. This alternative has the lowest level of

timber harvest and thinning (table 3.20). Road

densities are expected to decline in the more highly roaded areas (table 3.11), which suggests a substantive increase in both species occurrence and

strong populations (table 3.3). Increases would be

expected in the Palisades, Upper and Lower

Henrys, and Portneuf subbasins (table 3.10).

Although restoration in forested areas is not

emphasized, reduced human disturbance should

benefit depressed populations. Within rangelands,

this alternative includes a 50 percent reduction in

AUMs, the largest increases in livestock management, and a moderate increase in active riparian

restoration (table 3.20). These factors should

benefit Yellowstone cutthroat trout in currently

degraded rangeland habitats. As with other alternatives, it does not identify at-risk populations

outside of strongholds. Unlike the other alternatives, it is much more comprehensive in addressing the influence of other factors such as mining,

transport and storage of toxic materials, and water

transfers.

Summary—Yellowstone cutthroat trout are likely to persist under all alternatives. All alternatives

provide various levels of protection of core areas.

The degree to which degraded habitats are

restored best distinguishes the alternatives and

leads to the more favorable ratings. Alternatives 4,

6, and 7 are expected to conserve core areas and

move toward restoration of degraded habitats

(table 3.24). Alternative 3 provides uncertain benefits to Yellowstone cutthroat trout; although

some core areas are adequately conserved, many

other areas will be affected by additional landdisturbing activities. Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 can

be expected to exacerbate declines in Yellowstone

cutthroat trout populations outside of specially

protected areas.

Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.)

Redband trout are the most widely distributed of

the salmonids considered in this analysis. Redband

trout occur in about 73 percent of the assessment

area. Two general forms of redband were identified within the assessment area: one associated

with the distribution of steelhead (sympatric redband) and a second outside the historical

range of steelhead (allopatric redband).

Aquatics 48?
I

0)

Table 3.24. Projected effects of the seven proposed alternatives on Yellowstone cutthroat trout within the Basin.

1

Will the Alternative:

1 . Conserve strong populations in the

central or core portions of the species'

range?

2. Prevent declines in habitats or

populations throughout the entire

species' range?

— if "no", where are declines most likely

to occur (on FS/BLM lands)?

3. Help rebuild depressed populations by

restoring habitats?

— if "yes", where?

What is the role of factors other than

habitat?

Alternative

1

No

No

Palisades,

Salt River,

and areas

managed most

intensively for

timber and

range

commodities

No

Alternative

2

No

No

Areas

managed most

intensively for

timber and

range

commodities

No

Alternative

3

Yes

Uncertain

Areas

managed most

intensively

for timber

and range

commodities

Yes

Palisades

Alternative

4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Palisades,

Salt, Lower

Henrys, and

Portneuf

Alternativ

5

No

No

Commod

emphas

areas

No

Competition and introgression with introduced fishes can seriously threaten de

degraded habitats, and may undermine efforts to rebuild populat

'The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia River basin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascades and those portions of the Klamath Riv
Sympatric redband trout persist in about 69 percent of the potential historical range and

allopatric forms persist in about 49 percent of the

potential historical range.

Although the taxonomic status of redband trout is

uncertain, studies suggest long-term isolation of

allopatric forms with concomitant genetic differentiation among several populations in isolated

basins (Behnke 1992, Berg 1987). Allopatric

forms are distributed among a number of isolated

subbasins that may represent several evolutionarily

distinct lineages and thus important components

of the genetic variability of the species. These

groups are associated with the Wood and

Kootenai Rivers in the UCRB area, and the

Upper Klamath Basin and a complex of isolated

subbasins in south central Oregon in the EEIS

area (Goose Lake, Warner, Catlow Valley, and

Harney) (Lee and others, in press). Because of

their potentially unique characteristics, each of

these groups may warrant identification as separate evolutionary units or subspecies (Williams

and others 1989) and could be considered as part

of the fringe distribution for the species. We consider the likely influences of alternatives on the

broad distribution of redband trout in the next

section. In later sections dealing with sensitive

species, we also briefly consider effects specific to

the Upper Klamath Basin and isolated subbasins

in south-central Oregon.

Redband trout are generally believed to be

resilient to disturbance and their persistence across

the historical range supports this view. Most populations are believed to be depressed, however,

and strong populations are thought to exist in

only 9 to 17 percent of their historical range.

About 55 percent of the current distribution

occurs on Federal lands and 33 percent of that is

found in subbasins dominated by rangelands

(table 3.15). Management of FS- and BLMadministered lands and both timber harvest and

grazing activities should play an important role in

the distribution and status of this species. Because

redband trout remain relatively widely distributed,

active restoration of some habitats could play an

important role in restoring or securing a stronger

distribution.

Alternative 1—We anticipate further declines in

the status and distribution of redband trout under

this alternative. Moderate to high levels of timber

harvest activities (table 3.20), and increasing road

densities (table 3.11) are projected throughout the

range. The model predictions suggest a declining

trend in the distribution of strong populations

(tables 3.3 and 3.4). Current Forest plans may

provide varied levels of protection for both strong

and depressed populations. The lack of a consistent riparian conservation strategy and the allocation of only low levels of watershed and riparian

restoration activities (table 3.20), however, suggest

increased disturbance and negative trends. Under

this alternative there is an emphasis on commodity production for forestlands, rangelands, or both,

in all of the subbasins supporting the fringe populations, suggesting a downward trend. Although

redband trout are likely to persist and may even

remain widely distributed under this alternative,

we anticipate a significant loss in the status and

distribution of strong populations, and a risk of

compromising a significant part of the genetic

variability for the species.

Alternative 2—Under Alternative 2 we anticipate that the status for much of the distribution

of sympatric redband trout will be conserved in

both the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. We

expect that the distribution and status of the

allopatric populations representing the species

fringe will decline. Alternative 2 incorporates the

INFISH strategy including watershed analysis and

riparian conservation standards that should provide important protection for populations exposed

to land management in priority watersheds. The

distribution of sympatric redband populations

overlaps strongly with bull trout and some westslope cutthroat trout that were the focus of the

INFISH strategy, and with anadromous salmonids

emphasized in PACFISH and FEMAT For that

reason many of the priority watersheds will convey some protection to redband trout as well. The

additional protection could reduce the threats

Aquatics 489
associated with moderate or low levels of timber

harvest and thinning activities (table 3.20) in the

central and northern portions of the species range.

Within the priority watersheds, many of the

strong populations of redband trout in both

analysis areas should be conserved. With only limited watershed and riparian restoration, however,

we do not expect any important rebuilding in the

depressed part of this distribution. For redband

trout outside the priority watersheds, further

declines in status should be anticipated. Losses

may be particularly significant for the allopatric

form. Moderate levels of timber harvest and a

production/conservation emphasis for all rangelands associated with the allopatric populations

suggest a potential for significant watershed disturbance. Because many of the populations in the

fringe distributions are already depressed, there is

little riparian or watershed restoration anticipated.

Many of these populations may fall outside the

riparian protections afforded to the priority

INFISH watersheds, and we cannot expect any

significant restoration. Further losses in the fringe

populations could represent major losses in the

genetic diversity of this species.

Alternative 3—The cores of strong sympatric

redband trout populations on Forest Serviceadministered lands should be conserved under this

alternative. It is unclear what the trends will be in

the remainder of the range, particularly the

allopatric form outside of INFISH priority subwatersheds. The requirement for ecosystem analysis

in Category 1 and all subwatersheds supporting

strong populations should provide protection for

much of the distribution of sympatric redband

trout in both analysis areas. However, relatively

little watershed restoration is projected for forested lands supporting depressed populations (table

3.20). The potential lack of ecosystem analysis

(outside Category 1 and strong subwatersheds) to

effectively prioritize activities that do occur, indicates that little restoration of depressed populations could be expected in this part of the range.

A large portion of the redband distribution is

found in rangelands. The projection of relatively

high riparian restoration activities for depressed

fringe and strong subwatersheds (table 3.20) indicates a potential to secure existing strongholds and

restore other areas to a more productive condition. The lack of ecosystem analysis to effectively

prioritize conservation and restoration efforts and

the produce/conserve emphasis on all of the

rangelands associated with the southern portion of

the species distribution could negate overall

species gains.

Alternative 4—The cores of strong sympatric

redband populations should also be conserved and

possibly extended under this alternative. Although

moderate levels of timber harvest and thinning

activities are associated with this alternative (table

3.20), the requirement for ecosystem analysis and

more conservative riparian conservation standards

in strong and Category 1 watersheds could mitigate much of the disturbance. Results are less certain for areas outside of Category 1 and strong

subbasins. Strong trends were not evident in

either the road density projections (table 3.11) or

the modeled probabilities (tables 3.3 and 3.7) but

moderate or high levels of watershed and riparian

restoration activities are projected across the

species range (table 3.20). Those restoration

efforts coupled with the ecosystem analysis will

provide some opportunity to secure and extend

the strongholds. By effectively prioritizing both

forest and aquatic restoration activities to minimize risk in important watersheds, some gains

could be made. A similar opportunity exists across

the distribution of depressed and fringe populations where high levels of both watershed and

riparian restoration are projected (table 3.20). The

lack of Category 1 or many strong watersheds in

this part of the species range, however, suggests

that ecosystem analysis will not be required and

might be omitted across much of the area.

Without the framework to effectively focus conservation and restoration efforts, it is uncertain if

significant gains can be made across much of the

range of depressed and fringe populations.

Alternative 5—Although the core of the strong

sympatric redband trout distribution should be

conserved or even strengthened in the UCRB

490 Aquatics
area, we would expect a large part of that distribution in the EEIS area to seriously decline under

this alternative. All of the fringe distribution associated with the allopatric form would be expected

to decline in status as well. The requirement for

ecosystem analysis, an aquatic conservation

emphasis, and moderate or high levels of watershed and riparian restoration activities (table 3.20)

should benefit redband trout in the central region

of Idaho that lies outside commodity-emphasis

areas. The opportunity to secure and extend the

distribution of strong subwatersheds should be

similar to that discussed under Alternative 4. An

emphasis on timber or livestock production

extends over most of the remaining portion of the

strong distribution and over all of the fringe distribution for the allopatric form. Within these

portions of the redband range a lack of ecosystem

analysis to prioritize restoration activities, a less

conservative riparian protection standards (see

"Step 1" section for details), and higher levels of

disturbance can be expected to contribute to

declines in the existing distributions. We would

anticipate some decline in the status and distribution of redband trout throughout much of this

area. Models predict a reduced probability of

occurrence for allopatric redband trout in the

Williamson and Upper Klamath subbasins (tables

3.3 and 3.8). Any declines in the fringe distributions could represent losses in the genetic variability for this species.

Alternative 6—Similar to Alternative 4, the

cores of strong sympatric redband populations

should be conserved and perhaps extended under

this alternative. This alternative has low levels of

timber harvest and thinning activities (table 3.20).

The requirement for ecosystem analysis, and more

conservative riparian conservation standards in

strong and Category 1 watersheds should protect

most core areas. Results are less certain for areas

outside of Category 1 and strong subbasins.

Although high road densities were projected to

decrease (table 3.11), no trends were evident in

the modeled probabilities (tables 3.3 and 3.9).

Moderate or high levels of livestock management,

watershed restoration, and riparian restoration

activities are projected across the species range

(table 3.20). Those restoration efforts coupled

with ecosystem analysis will provide some opportunity to secure and extend the strongholds.

Although this alternative places less emphasis on

forest and aquatic restoration activities than does

Alternative 4, it also has less risk from landdisturbing activities (table 3.20). A similar opportunity exists across the distribution of depressed

and fringe populations where high levels of both

watershed and riparian restoration are projected

(table 3.20). The lack of Category 1 or many

strong watersheds in this part of the species range,

however, suggests that ecosystem analysis will not

be required and might be omitted across much of

the area. Without the framework to effectively

focus conservation and restoration efforts it is

uncertain if significant gains can be made across

much of the range of depressed and fringe

populations.

Alternative 7—This alternative provides a system of reserves which conserve core areas. These

reserves should be adequate to protect most of the

core areas for both sympatric and allopatric forms.

Exceptions are the Harney and Goose Lake subbasins where reserves will not include core areas

for allopatric redband trout. This alternative

includes a combination of RHCAs, requirements

for ecosystem analysis, and a cumulative effects

process that should conserve most strongholds.

The alternative has the lowest level of timber harvest and thinning (table 3.20). The road densities

have reductions in current high-density areas and

increases in low- and moderate-density areas (table

3.11). The models predict small changes in the

probability of occurrence with slightly improved

occurrence in the Williamson and Upper Klamath

Lake subbasins (tables 3.3 and 3.10). Although

restoration in forested areas is not emphasized,

reduced human disturbance should benefit

depressed populations. Within rangelands, this

alternative includes a 50 percent reduction in

AUMs, the largest increase in livestock management, and a large increase in riparian restoration

(table 3.20). These factors should benefit redband

trout in currently degraded rangelands. This alterAquatics 491
native also has more comprehensive coverage of

other factors including mining, transport and

storage of toxic materials, and water transfers.

Summary—Although redband trout are likely to

persist under all of the alternatives, the degree to

which strongholds (especially isolated allopatric

populations on the fringe of the species range) are

conserved varies across alternatives. Alternatives 4

and 6 are expected to conserve most remaining

core areas and move toward restoration of some

degraded habitats, although benefits are uncertain

for fringe populations. Alternative 7 does the

most extensive job of conserving habitats for redband trout, including fringe populations in rangelands, although core areas in the Harney and

Goose Lake subbasins may remain at risk (table

3.25). Alternatives 2 and 3 conserve sympatric

strongholds, but declines are expected in the

allopatric form comprising the fringe of the

species. Alternatives 1 and 5 are anticipated to

contribute to continued declines in status and distributions of redband trout populations.

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss mykiss)

Steelhead formerly occupied approximately 50

percent of the subwatersheds in the Basin and

were found in Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs)

within both the UCRB and EEIS planning areas.

Steelhead are extinct in approximately 54 percent

of the historical range, primarily as a result of

blocked access to historical habitats. Few healthy

populations persist within the current range; 1.3

percent of the subwatersheds support strong populations. Wild fish unaltered by hatchery stocks

are likely rare, and expected in only 10 percent of

the potential historical range (Lee and others, in

press). Steelhead are currently a Federal Candidate

species for listing under the Endangered Species

Act. We evaluated these alternatives on their own

merit, regardless of potential future requirements

for consultation under the ESA. Any additional

requirements through Section 7 of the ESA would

be expected to provide added protection for critical habitats. Management of FS- and BLMadministered lands could strongly influence the

status and distribution of Steelhead, because 70

percent of strong subwatersheds and 59 percent of

depressed ones are located on FS- or BLM-administered land (table 3.16). Approximately 19 percent of the depressed populations occur in wilderness areas. Because so few strong populations persist, virtually all subwatersheds that sustain wild

and naturally reproducing Steelhead should be

considered critical habitats for biological reasons.

Steelhead are dependent on habitats in both

forested areas and rangelands and activities in

both categories will affect populations.

Because of their extensive migrations and diverse

life histories, Steelhead and other anadromous

fishes are influenced by Federal land management

in spawning and rearing areas and migration corridors, and by a large number of other factors

that operate outside of Federal lands in freshwater, estuaries, and the ocean environment. About

68 percent of the migration corridors betweenfreshwater spawning and rearing habitats and the

ocean lie on private or tribal lands (table 3.16).

The quality and connectivity of habitats in both

mainstem rivers and smaller watersheds will likely

influence the strength and persistence of remaining Steelhead populations (Lee and others, in

press). Recent declines in Steelhead stocks can be

attributed primarily to the construction and

operation of mainstem dams on the Columbia

and Snake Rivers (CBFWA 1990, Raymond

1988). Because of mortalities associated with the

dams (IDFG and others 1990; Raymond 1979,

1988), only the most productive populations

may retain the resilience to persist in the face of

natural and human caused disturbance (Lee and

others, in press). Any changes in the environment

that influence survival and productivity of

remaining Steelhead populations, including

improvements in spawning and rearing habitats

and reduced mortality from fishing, predation,

and mainstem passage, will improve chances for

persistence in variable environments (Emlen

1995). Simply put, under current conditions in

migrant survival, many Steelhead populations are

at serious risk.

492 Aquatics
Table 3.25. Projected effects of the seven proposed alternatives on redband trout.

Will the Alternative:

1 . Conserve strong populations in the

central or core portions of the species'

range?

2. Prevent declines in habitats or

populations throughout the entire

species' range?

— if "no", where are declines most likely

to occur (on FS/BLM lands)?

3. Help rebuild depressed populations by

restoring habitats?

— if "yes", where?

What is the role of factors other than

habitat?

Alternative

1

No

No

Outside

wilderness

and other

protected

areas

No

Alternative

2

Yes

No

Allopatric

form outside

INFISH'

priority areas,

and Range

Cluster 6

Yes

Alternative

3

Yes

Uncertain

Allopatric

form outside

INFISH

1

priority areas,

and Range

Cluster 6

Yes

Alternative

4

Yes

Uncertain

Category 2

and 3, and

Range

Cluster 6

Yes

Alternat

5

No

No

EEIS a

Wood a

Kooten

Rang

Cluster 

Yes

Mixed results across species' range depending on intensity of riparian restoratio

Competition and introgression with introduced fishes can seriously threaten depre

degraded habitats, and may undermine efforts to rebuild populations in good habit

.a

I

o

'(INFISH) Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995. Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim Strategies for managing 

Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain, 

[irregular pagination].
The differences between populations that persist

and those that are extirpated will be strongly

influenced by the survival and productivity of the

populations as they are influenced by freshwater

spawning and rearing habitats. Without substantial improvement in migrant survival, conserving

and restoring the quality of freshwater habitats

may make an important difference in persistence

for many of the remaining populations. In the

short term, conservation and restoration of habitats directly associated with remaining populations

will be most important. In the long term, assuming mainstem conditions are resolved, it will be

necessary to conserve and restore broader networks to support the full expression of life histories and species (Lee and others, in press; Lichatowich and Mobrand 1995). To ensure persistence

and rebuilding of stocks, conservation and restoration of habitat on Federal lands must work in

concert with other factors affecting steelhead.

Although conservation and restoration of freshwater habitats may make the critical difference in

persistence of many stocks, such activities are not

likely to substantially improve the distribution

and abundance of steelhead without substantial

improvements in survival outside of spawning and

rearing areas.

In our analysis of alternatives for steelhead, we did

not rely on the classification trees tied to road

density to consider potential trends. As discussed

earlier, the models were not as useful for predicting the likelihood of changes in the distribution

of populations of anadromous salmonids as they

were for resident salmonids (table 3.3). As Lee

and others (in press) noted, there are several

potential reasons why the models do not perform

as well for the anadromous species. First, anadromous salmonids have extensive migrations and

their widely-dispersed life stages, status, and distribution are influenced by factors within freshwater spawning and rearing areas, as well as by

factors outside those areas. Although road density

will influence the quality of freshwater spawning

and rearing habitats, roads do not adequately

reflect other factors (for example, mainstem passage, predation, harvest, and ocean conditions)

that influence the survival of life stages that

migrate from freshwater spawning and rearing

habitats. Second, the model does not differentiate

between wild and hatchery-supplemented anadromous fish stocks. In some heavily-disturbed subwatersheds with high road densities, remnant

numbers of anadromous fish may be present only

because of supplementation with hatchery-reared

fish. Third, too few strong populations are present

to relate their presence to road density. As a result,

the classification trees do not adequately predict

the influence of changes in road density across

alternatives on the status of anadromous fish.

The scientific literature illustrates that the quality

of freshwater spawning and rearing areas will

influence the survival, condition, and distribution

of juvenile anadromous salmonids (see for example Meehan 1991). There is little reason to anticipate that freshwater life stages of the anadromous

forms will respond in substantively different ways

than resident forms. Anadromous salmonids in

many portions of the Basin overlap in distribution

with resident salmonids including redband trout,

bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout.

Consequently, models for resident salmonids may

be useful surrogates for anadromous species during their freshwater spawning and rearing stages.

We used results of the predictive models for these

resident salmonids as additional information to

consider the alternatives with regard to the status

of steelhead.

Alternative 1—Management under Alternative 1

will likely contribute to continued declines in

steelhead across their range. Although individual

Forest plans may provide some levels of sitespecific restoration and protection for important

local steelhead stocks, this alternative lacks a consistent conservation and restoration approach.

Steelhead populations within designated wilderness areas in central Idaho (UCRB area) should

not be adversely affected by this alternative.

Populations outside of wilderness areas, however,

would likely be exposed to increased timber harvest and thinning activities (table 3.20) and road

construction. The number of subwatersheds with

494 Aquatics
moderate and high numbers of roads is expected

to increase and subwatersheds with no roads are

expected to decrease (table 3.11). Results of the

classification tree analysis for bull trout, redband

trout, and westslope cutthroat trout suggest widespread declines in the frequency of both strong

and depressed populations within the range of

steelhead (table 3.4). Very little watershed restoration is planned under this alternative (table 3.20).

Timber harvest and road construction would also

increase within areas supporting what may be the

last remaining genetically intact steelhead stocks

in Forest Clusters 2 and 5. Within rangelands,

Alternative 1 provides only modest improvements

in livestock management and very little planned

riparian restoration (table 3.20). Declines would

likely be most pronounced in areas managed most

intensively for timber and range commodity production.

Alternative 2—Important habitats currently

supporting strong populations of steelhead are

likely to be conserved under this alternative. Most

populations would be provided increased protection through the maintenance of both the

INFISH and PACFISH riparian strategies as well

as relatively low levels of projected land-disturbing

activities. In general, we anticipate that habitats

for important remnant populations associated

with Federal lands will be largely conserved in

current conditions. Continued disruption of habitats may occur where land-disturbing activities are

most concentrated in the commodity-emphasis

areas of Forest Cluster 3 and are associated with

portions of the northern and southern Cascades

and the lower Snake and Salmon Rivers in the

Columbia Plateau and Central Idaho Mountains.

Reductions in some of the highest watershed road

densities (table 3.11) and moderate levels of

watershed restoration activity (table 3.20) should

work to improve conditions for some of the

depressed populations that may persist in degraded habitats outside of these areas. In general, we

would not expect strong rebuilding of steelhead

populations under this alternative. The projections of watersheds with low road densities (table

3.11) and the trends predicted by the classification models for bull trout and westslope cutthroat

trout that tend to overlap distributions with steelhead, suggest little in the way of major habitat

restoration that would lead to substantial rebuilding of depressed stocks in degraded

environments.

Alternative 3—We anticipate mixed results for

habitats supporting steelhead populations

throughout the current distribution of this species

under Alternative 3. The few strong populations

remaining will benefit from the focus of ecosystem analysis and more restrictive riparian protection measures associated with PACFISH and

INFISH. Those benefits may not translate widely

in the remaining distribution. Moderate or high

timber harvest and thinning activities are forecast

for most of the range including both strong and

depressed populations (table 3.20). An increase in

watersheds with very low and low road densities

and a reduction in watersheds with high or

extreme road densities (table 3.11) indicate some

mitigation of increased activity, but low or moderate levels of watershed restoration in spawning

and rearing habitats and none in seasonal or corridor watersheds suggest that activities may be

focused more heavily on road closures than on full

restoration. Because so few strong steelhead populations remain, the application of ecosystem

analysis (Category 1 or strong populations) may

provide little benefit to many of the depressed

populations. Steelhead habitats that overlap with

the current strong distributions of bull trout and

westslope cutthroat trout, or are found in the

Section 7 watersheds (largely the Central Idaho

Mountains and Northern Cascades) are likely to

fair best under this alternative. We anticipate that

the habitats supporting currently strong populations and perhaps an important portion of the

depressed populations (primarily in Forest

Categories 1 and 2) will be conserved or modestly

strengthened under this alternative. The remaining part of the range is less likely to benefit under

this alternative, and we would not anticipate a

strong rebuilding of habitats that could support

broadly increasing populations.

Aquatics 495
Alternative 4—We anticipate that this alternative will largely conserve the habitats for remaining strong populations of steelhead if watershed

restoration and ecosystem analysis are effective at

focusing and mitigating more intensive land management activities. Although combined timber

harvest and thinning activities are anticipated to

be moderate to high, positive changes in road

densities (table 3.11) and some of the highest levels of watershed and riparian restoration across

alternatives (table 3.20) could mitigate some of

this risk. Additionally, the focus on ecosystem

analysis in Category 1 watersheds and watersheds

supporting strongholds for salmonids should allow

activities to be focused with the least risk to critical habitats and perhaps with the benefit of

extending and strengthening those distributions.

Conservation or restoration of habitats across the

distribution of depressed steelhead populations is

less likely. Even though high levels of watershed

and riparian restoration are predicted for much of

the depressed distribution in watersheds that do

not coincide with Category 1 or strongholds for

other species, the lack of ecosystem analysis could

mean that activities are focused ineffectively. The

potential to benefit habitats through increased

active restoration is important but we are uncertain whether it can be realized without detailed

analysis and planning. The greatest benefits

should be afforded to the strong populations

found principally in the Blue Mountains and to

depressed populations associated with Forest

Cluster 1 in the Central Idaho Mountains. The

greatest risks are likely associated with depressed

populations in the Blue Mountains, Columbia

Plateau, and Central Idaho Mountains associated

with Forest Clusters 3, 4, and 5.

Alternative 5—Alternative 5 is not expected to

conserve habitats supporting strong populations or

prevent further declines in habitats for steelhead

across much of the range. Although this alternative adequately conserves some remaining strongholds outside of commodity-emphasis areas,

steelhead trout stocks that overlap commodityemphasis areas in Forest Cluster 5 and Range

Clusters 1 and 6 will be subject to land disturbance from timber harvest and livestock. Core

areas outside of commodity-emphasis areas will be

managed identically to Alternative 4. Within commodity-emphasis areas, standards provide little

protection to riparian areas and minimal ecosystem analysis and there is no process to address

cumulative watershed effects. High levels of harvest and thinning are not compensated by

increased watershed restoration or road-density

reductions (tables 3.11 and 3.20). Results of the

predictive models suggest declines in the frequency of both strong and depressed populations of

bull trout within the range of steelhead (table

3.8). Except for Alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative has the smallest reduction in high road densities (table 3.11).

Alternative 6—This alternative provides protection for the habitats supporting strong populations

and much of the depressed distribution similar to

that under Alternative 4. Because activity levels are

lower and there is an emphasis on a more conservative and adaptive approach, we would anticipate -

similar benefits and perhaps fewer risks than under

Alternative 4. Similar to Alternative 4, this alternative places special emphasis on subbasins that support strongholds or a Category 1 recognition.

Because so few strongholds for steelhead remain,

and because portions of the range may not overlap

with other species or Category 1 watersheds, all

remaining populations may not receive a conservation emphasis or the focus of ecosystem analysis.

Timber harvest levels are generally low or moderate

in most areas, so risks tend to be minimized and to

some extent mitigated by positive changes in road

densities, moderate levels of watershed restoration

and high levels of riparian restoration (table 3.20).

Some thinning in areas within Forest Clusters 2

and 6, supporting genetically intact populations,

would occur. An emphasis on watershed restoration (table 3.20) and reduced road density (table

3.11) should particularly benefit Forest Clusters 2

and 5 that support all of the strong and most of

the depressed populations. Results of the classification tree analysis for resident salmonids suggest a

positive trend in the distribution of bull trout and

westslope cutthroat trout in most subbasins within

the range of steelhead (table 3.9).

496 Aquatics
Alternative 7—This alternative provides a system

of reserves and very restricted management activities that should conserve much of the remaining

distribution of steelhead. It may lead to some

rebuilding of habitats in the reserve areas, but

restoration of habitats in more degraded landscapes will be mixed, occurring more slowly in

areas without active watershed restoration. This

alternative identifies roadless reserves that will

contain an important, but not dominant, part of

the remaining, occupied steelhead habitats (table

3.11). With limited timber harvest and thinning

activities (table 3.20), the combination of riparian

habitat conservation requirements for ecosystem

analysis and a cumulative effects process should

conserve the current conditions of most habitats

outside the reserves. The continued degradation of

some watersheds with a legacy of past management, however, is unlikely to be mitigated with

the limited watershed restoration activity. Results

of the predictive models suggest positive trends in

the frequency of both strong and depressed populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout

within the range of steelhead (table 3.10). Within

rangelands, this alternative includes a major reduction (50%) in grazing, the largest increases in livestock management, and a moderate increase in

active riparian restoration (table 3.20). These factors should benefit steelhead stocks in currently

degraded rangeland habitats perhaps more strongly

than those in degraded forest environments.

Similar to the other alternatives, Alternative 7 does

not identify depressed populations outside of

strongholds for any special emphasis. Unlike the

other alternatives, it is much more comprehensive

in addressing the influence of other factors such as

mining, transport and storage of toxic materials,

and water transfers.

Summary—Steelhead have been extirpated from

the majority of their historical range. Most

remaining steelhead populations are depressed and

the long-term persistence of remaining populations is highly uncertain. Because of high mortalities associated with dams and other factors in the

ocean and migratory corridors, freshwater habitats

may make the important difference between populations that persist and those that go extinct.

Conservation or restoration of currently occupied

habitats may be critical to the persistence of the

remnant populations. All of the alternatives except

Alternatives 1 and 5 are anticipated to conserve

the habitats currently supporting strong populations (table 3.26). Although each of the alternatives will confer some protection for habitats supporting depressed populations, the results under

all of the alternatives are likely to be mixed and

uncertain. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide extended

protection to steelhead habitats associated with

the implementation of the PACFISH and

INFISH conservation strategies but provide relatively little emphasis on habitat restoration. Alternatives 1,3,4 and 5 support high levels of timber

harvest and thinning activities that represent

increased risks for some populations. Although an

increased emphasis on watershed restoration activities under these alternatives could mitigate much

of the risk and provide important restoration of

current and potential future habitats, the lack of a

clear emphasis on ecosystem analysis outside of

the Category 1 or stronghold watersheds makes

that result uncertain. Alternative 6 is similar to

Alternative 4 in this regard but the lower levels of

land-disturbing activity, and the more conservative and adaptive approach could benefit populations across the range. Continuing declines are

most likely under Alternatives 1 and 5 particularly

in the commodity-emphasis areas outside Forest

Clusters 1 and 2. Alternative 7 with the implementation of conservation reserves, reduced landdisturbing activities, and a restrictive riparian

management strategy will likely conserve much of

the remaining habitat. Some degraded habitats,

however, may be restored more slowly or even

decline further with limited emphasis on active

restoration in Alternative 7. It is unlikely that any

activities on Federal lands will result in strong

rebuilding of steelhead populations without substantial improvements in other factors influencing

these populations. If conditions outside spawning

and rearing habitats remain poor, it is possible

that many remaining stocks will continue to

decline.

Aquatics 49?
I

Q)

^o'

(fl

Table 3.26. Projected effects of the seven proposed alternatives on steelhead trout and stream-type chinook salmon.

Will the Alternative:

1 . Conserve strong populations in the

central or core portions of the species'

range?

2. Prevent declines in habitats or

populations throughout the entire

species' range?

— if "no", where are declines most likely

to occur (on FS/BLM lands)?

3. Help rebuild depressed populations by

restoring habitats?

— if "yes", where?

What is the role of factors other than

habitat?

Alternative

1

No

No

Outside of

wilderness

and other

protected

areas

No

Alternative

2

Yes

No

Forest

Cluster 3

Yes

PACFISH'

priority

watersheds

Alternative

3

Uncertain

No

Category 2

and 3

subbasins,

Forest

Cluster 5

Yes

Alternative

4

Yes

Uncertain

Category 2 and

3 subbasins,

Forest

Clusters 3, 4,

and 5

Yes

Alternat

5

No

No

Category 2 

3 subbas

commod

emphas

areas

Yes

Category 1 subbasins, Forest Clusters 1

and 2

The combined effects of hydropower operations, hatcheries, and harvest may lim

where freshwater spawning and rearing habitats are restored. Similarly, protect

will not guarantee population persistence without mitigation 

'(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Draft environmental assessm

producing watersheds on Federal lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Land Management, [irregular pagination].
Stream-type chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Stream-type chinook salmon formerly occupied

approximately 45 percent of the subwatersheds in

the Basin and were found within both the UCRB

and EEIS planning areas. Stream-type chinook

salmon are extirpated in about 72 percent of the

historical range, primarily as a result of blocked

access to historical habitats. Remaining chinook

salmon stocks are extremely depressed. Few

healthy populations persist in the current range;

less than 1 percent of the subwatersheds support

strong populations. Wild fish, unaltered by hatchery introgression, are likely found in only 4 percent of the historical range. Snake River stocks of

stream-type chinook salmon are currently listed as

a threatened species under the Federal ESA. We

evaluated these alternatives on their own merits,

regardless of future requirements for consultation

under the ESA. Additional requirements through

Section 7 of the ESA would be expected to provide added protection for critical habitats.

Management of FS- and BLM-administered lands

affects 88 percent of subwatersheds with strong

populations of stream-type chinook, and 72 percent of subwatersheds with depressed populations

(table 3.17). Approximately 38 percent of the

strong and 23 percent of the depressed populations occur in wilderness areas. Because so few

strong populations persist, virtually all subwatersheds that sustain wild and naturally-reproducing

stream-type chinook salmon should be considered

critical habitats. Chinook salmon are dependent

on habitats in both forestland and rangeland

areas; activities in either category will affect

populations.

Because of their anadromous life history, streamtype chinook salmon are affected by Federal land

management in migration corridors and spawning

and rearing areas, and by other factors that operate outside of Federal lands in freshwater, estuaries, and the ocean environment. Approximately

64 percent of the migration corridors between

freshwater spawning and rearing habitats and the

ocean lie on private or tribal lands. Restoration of

habitats and habitat connectivity in both mainstem rivers and subbasins may be important for

stream-type chinook salmon stocks to persist (Lee

and others, in press). Recent declines in streamtype chinook salmon stocks can be attributed primarily to the construction and operation of mainstem dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers

(CBFWA 1990, Raymond 1988). Due to passage

mortalities associated with the dams (IDFG and

others 1990; Raymond 1979, 1988), only the

most productive populations may retain the

resilience to persist in the face of natural and

human-caused disturbance. Any changes in the

environment that influence survival and productivity of remaining stream-type chinook salmon

stocks, including improvements in spawning and

rearing habitats and reduced mortality from fishing, predation, and mainstem passage, will

improve chances for persistence in stochastic environments (Emlen 1995). Simply put, under current conditions in migrant survival, many stocks

are at serious risk. The differences between chinook populations that persist and those that are

extirpated may depend on their survival and productivity in freshwater spawning and rearing habitats. Without substantial improvement in migrant

survival, conserving and restoring the quality of

freshwater habitats may make an important difference in persistence for many populations. In the

longer term, assuming mainstem conditions are

resolved, it will be necessary to conserve and

restore broader habitat networks to support the

full expression of life histories and species (Lee

and others, in press; Lichatowich and Mobrand

1995).

To ensure population persistence and rebuilding,

conservation and restoration of Federal-land

habitat must work in concert with other factors

affecting stream-type chinook salmon. Although

conservation and restoration of freshwater habitats

may be critical to stock persistence, such efforts

are unlikely to improve the distribution and abundance of stream-type chinook salmon without

substantial improvements in survival outside of

spawning and rearing areas.

Aquatics 499
As described previously for steelhead trout, classification trees for predicting the likelihood of

changes in the distribution of strong populations

of chinook salmon were not sensitive to changes

in road density as they were for resident

salmonids. Similar to steelhead, models for resident salmonids may be useful surrogates for

stream-type chinook salmon during their freshwater spawning and rearing stages. We used results

of the classification trees for redband trout, bull

trout, and westslope cutthroat trout to provide

additional information when considering the

effects of each alternative on stream-type chinook

salmon. Results of the alternative evaluation for

chinook are similar to those for steelhead. Streamtype chinook salmon tend to occupy larger

streams and are more depressed than are most

steelhead stocks.

Alternative 1—Alternative 1 will likely contribute to continued declines in stream-type chinook salmon within spawning and rearing areas

and migration corridors across their range.

Although individual Forest plans may provide

some levels of site-specific restoration and protection for local stocks, this alternative lacks a consistent conservation and restoration approach.

Stream-type chinook salmon populations within

designated wilderness in central Idaho (UCRB

area) should not be adversely affected by this alternative. Populations outside of wilderness, however,

will be affected by increased timber harvest and

thinning activities and increased road construction

(table 3.20). The number of subwatersheds with

moderate and high numbers of roads is expected

to increase (table 3.11). Very little watershed

restoration is planned under this alternative (table

3.20). Timber harvest and road construction will

also increase within areas supporting what may be

the last remaining genetically intact stocks in

Forest Clusters 2 and 5. Within rangelands,

Alternative 1 has only modest improvements in

livestock management and very little planned

riparian restoration (table 3.20). Declines will

likely be most pronounced in areas managed most

intensively for timber and range commodity production.

Alternative 2—Alternative 2 will likely protect

the few remaining strong populations of streamtype chinook salmon, but is unlikely to prevent

declines in other portions of the species's range or

to help rebuild depressed populations in areas

with degraded habitat outside of PACFISH priority watersheds. Although increased protection of

watersheds may be provided, land-disturbing

activities will continue throughout much of the

range and there is little emphasis on restoration of

degraded areas. Increased protection is included

under the application of PACFISH guidelines that

would require watershed analysis if standards were

to be altered. Land-disturbing activities including

harvest and thinning are relatively low (table

3.20). Low levels of timber harvest and moderate

thinning activities would occur in Forest Cluster

5, which supports all of the remaining strong

stream-type chinook salmon populations and offsets some by moderate levels of road reduction

(reducing high and extremely high road densities).

Basin-wide, there is essentially no expected change

in the number of unroaded to low road-density

subwatersheds (table 3.11). Alternative 2 identifies

riparian areas and landslide-prone areas, but populations or habitats that may require special emphasis are not identified. There is also a lack of

emphasis on restoration of depressed habitats. In

rangelands, there is little emphasis on riparian

restoration and increases in livestock management would occur (table 3.20). Consequently,

currently degraded habitats may not receive the

restoration effort needed to reverse population

declines.

Alternative 3—We are uncertain whether

Alternative 3 will conserve remaining strong populations, and do not expect it to prevent further

declines in populations of stream-type chinook

salmon. Limited restoration of degraded habitats

in some areas is expected. Since Forest Cluster 5

supports all of the remaining strong populations

(table 3.19) and many of the wild populations

without hatchery influence, activities within this

cluster are particularly important. Moderate levels

of timber harvest and high levels of thinning are

planned for Forest Cluster 5 under this alternative.

Aquatics
These activities are offset some by moderate levels

of road reduction, but only a low level of watershed restoration is planned. While increased

watershed protection is provided under the application of PACFISH guidelines and ecosystem

analysis in subwatersheds with strong populations,

it is uncertain whether there will be sufficient

emphasis on restoring and protecting habitats

across entire subbasins within Forest Cluster 5 to

prevent further declines of population strongholds. We are concerned that subwatersheds which

currently support strong populations may become

more isolated and fragmented by activities occurring upstream and in adjacent subwatersheds that

are not provided the same level of protection.

Because chinook tend to spawn in larger streams,

spawning conditions may be influenced by the

cumulative effect of activities in multiple watersheds. In Forest Clusters 1 and 2, which represent

much of the best remaining habitats for streamtype chinook, low levels of harvest and moderate

levels of watershed restoration should help to protect high-quality habitats and restore degraded

conditions on Federal lands within central Idaho

and the northern Cascades.

Alternative 4—Alternative 4 can conserve strong

populations, prevent further declines in habitats

and populations, and help rebuild depressed populations in degraded areas—but only if watershed

restoration is effective in improving habitat conditions. Although this alternative emphasizes

active management to restore degraded areas,

there are risks associated with land-disturbing

activities. Levels of timber harvest and thinning

are higher than in most other alternatives (table

3.20). There are moderate timber harvest and

thinning activities in Forest Clusters 3 and 5,

which are offset by moderate levels of watershed

restoration and moderate and high levels of road

reduction. This alternative has a system of RMAs

with stronger requirements for ecosystem analysis

and slope-adjusted RMA widths. Increased

emphasis on watershed restoration and reduced

road densities (table 3.11) potentially could

improve habitat conditions throughout most of

the species' range. Restoration activities could

negatively affect habitats and negate the benefits,

however, if not closely monitored to ensure effectiveness. Benefits seem most assured in Forest

Clusters 1 and 2, which have lower levels of harvest and thinning activities. In rangelands,

Alternative 4 has a moderate increase in livestock

management and a large increase in riparian

restoration (table 3.20).

Alternative 5—Alternative 5 is not expected to

conserve strong populations or prevent further

declines in habitats or populations of stream-type

chinook salmon stocks. Although this alternative

adequately protects populations outside of

commodity-emphasis areas, stream-type chinook

salmon overlap commodity-emphasis areas in

Forest Cluster 5 and Range Clusters 1 and 6 and

will be subject to moderate to high land disturbance from timber harvest and livestock. Areas

outside of commodity-emphasis areas, such as

Forest Clusters 1 and 2, will be managed similarly

to Alternative 4 and will see similar benefits.

Within commodity-emphasis areas, standards

provide little protection of riparian areas and minimal ecosystem analysis and there is no process to

address cumulative watershed effects. High levels

of harvest and thinning are not compensated by

increased watershed restoration or road-density

reductions (table 3.20). Except for Alternatives 1

and 2, this alternative has the smallest reduction

in high road densities (table 3.11).

Alternative 6—Alternative 6 protects strong

populations and applies a conservative and adaptive approach to restoration that should benefit

stream-type chinook salmon stocks throughout

their range. Similar to Alternative 4, this alternative places special emphasis on Category 1 subbasins and subwatersheds that support strong populations. Because so few strongholds for streamtype chinook salmon remain, however, many core

areas that support depressed populations do not

receive a conservation emphasis. Timber harvest

levels are low in most areas so risks are minimized

(table 3.20). Under Alternative 6 there would be

some thinning in areas within Forest Clusters 2

and 6 that support genetically intact populations.

This alternative has a system of RMAs with

Aquatics SQt
stronger requirements for ecosystem analysis, and

requirements are adjusted based on slope.

Moderate levels of watershed restoration and

extensive reductions in road densities (table 3.11)

should benefit stream-type chinook throughout

their range. In rangelands, Alternative 6 has

increased livestock management and a large

increase in riparian restoration (table 3.20).

Alternative 7—Alternative 7 provides a system

of reserves to conserve core areas and restrictive

RMAs that should protect strong populations, but

depressed populations in currently degraded habitats outside of reserves may continue to decline.

Although restoration activities are low, land-disturbing activities are also minimal. Alternative 7

identifies special-emphasis areas as 1,000-acre

(405 ha) roadless reserves that will contain the

best remaining habitats and strongest populations.

This approach will overlook some core populations in degraded habitats. Despite this problem,

the combination of RHCAs, requirements for

ecosystem analysis, and a cumulative effects

process should conserve most core areas. This

alternative has the lowest level of timber harvest

and thinning (table 3.20). However, some thinning would occur within areas of high genetic

integrity in Forest Cluster 5. Although restoration

is not emphasized, reduced human disturbance

coupled with reductions in road densities (table

3.11) should benefit depressed populations.

Within rangelands, this alternative includes a 50

percent reduction in AUMs, the largest increases

in livestock management, and a moderate increase

in active riparian restoration (table 3.20). These

factors should benefit stream-type chinook salmon

stocks in currently degraded rangeland habitats.

Similar to other alternatives, it does not identify

at-risk populations outside of strongholds. Unlike

the other alternatives, it is much more comprehensive in addressing the influence of other factors such as mining, transport and storage of toxic

materials, and water transfers.

Summary—Most remaining stream-type chinook salmon populations are depressed and strong

populations are rare. In the absence of strong populations, subwatersheds that retain high genetic

integrity and those supporting naturally reproducing populations should be considered critical

habitats. As with steelhead trout, until passage

mortalities associated with the hydroelectric system in the mainstem migration corridors and

other factors outside Federal lands are resolved,

the resilience and persistence of stream-type chinook salmon stocks will be largely dependent on

the quality of freshwater habitats (Lee and others,

in press). High-quality spawning and rearing

habitats can increase the likelihood that stocks

will persist in stochastic environments (Emlen

1995). As a result, aggressive and extensive protection and restoration of spawning and rearing

habitat will be needed to retain stock resilience.

Alternative 1 will likely contribute to continued

declines in stream-type chinook salmon within

spawning and rearing areas and migration corridors across their range (table 3.26). Alternative 2

will likely protect the few remaining strong populations, but is unlikely to prevent declines in other

portions of the species' range or to help rebuild

depressed populations in areas with degraded

habitat. We are uncertain whether Alternative 3

will conserve remaining strong populations, and

do not expect it to prevent further declines.

Alternative 4 can conserve strong populations,

prevent further declines in habitats and populations, and help rebuild depressed populations in

degraded areas—but only if watershed restoration

is effective in improving habitat conditions.

Alternative 5 is not expected to conserve remaining strong populations or prevent further declines

in populations, though they may help rebuild

some depressed populations. Alternative 6 is similar to Alternative 4, but applies a more conservative and adaptive approach to restoration that

should benefit stream-type chinook salmon stocks

throughout their range. Alternative 7 provides a

system of reserves to conserve core areas and

restrictive RMAs that should protect strong populations, but depressed populations in currently

degraded habitats outside of reserves may continue to decline. With the exception of Alternative 7,

none of the alternatives address effects other than

timber and livestock-based activities. Moreover,

none of the alternatives address the needs and

SQ-2 Aquatics
opportunities for restoring habitat conditions outside Federal lands, nor do they address the need

for a comprehensive approach to restoring streamtype chinook salmon habitat and alleviating causes

of mortality in freshwater spawning and rearing

areas, migration corridors, estuaries, and the

ocean. Without a comprehensive approach, even

those alternatives that most benefit stream-type

chinook salmon could not be expected to ensure

persistence.

Ocean-type chinook

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Ocean-type chinook salmon formerly occupied

about 7 percent of the subwatersheds in the Basin

and were found primarily in mainstem reaches of

the Snake and Columbia Rivers within the UCRB

and EEIS planning areas. The species occurred in

six ERUs and was present in the fewest subwatersheds of any of the seven key salmonids. Oceantype chinook salmon are extinct in approximately

70 percent of the historical range, primarily as a

result of blocked access to historical habitats.

Remaining ocean-type chinook salmon stocks are

depressed and at risk. Few healthy populations

persist in the current range; 15 percent of the subwatersheds support strong populations and all of

these are within the lower mainstem and midColumbia Rivers. Wild fish, unaltered by hatchery

stocks, are rare and present in 5 percent of the

historical range. Ocean-type chinook salmon

stocks in the UCRB area are severely depressed

and stocks in the Snake River are listed as a

threatened species under the Endangered Species

Act. As with steelhead and stream-type chinook

salmon, we evaluated the alternatives on their own

merits, regardless of future requirements for consultation under the ESA. Additional requirements

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

would be expected to provide added protection of

critical habitats. Management of FS- and BLMadministered lands will have a relatively minor

influence on ocean-type chinook salmon populations; 14 percent of strong populations and 22

percent of depressed populations are on federally

administered land (table 3.18). Approximately 10

percent of the depressed populations are in

wilderness areas.

The effects of Federal land management on

ocean-type chinook salmon are less direct than on

steelhead trout and stream-type chinook, because

ocean-type chinook depend on lower-elevation,

mainstem river habitats. The species is proportionally more affected by a large number of other

factors that operate outside of Federal lands in

freshwater, estuaries, and the ocean environment.

All of the migration corridors between freshwater

spawning and rearing habitats and the ocean lie

on private or tribal lands. Restoration of habitats

and habitat connectivity in mainstem rivers will

be necessary for ocean-type chinook salmon stocks

to persist. Recent declines in ocean-type chinook

salmon stocks can be attributed primarily to the

construction and operation of mainstem dams on

the Columbia and Snake Rivers (CBFWA 1990).

With some exceptions, the resilience and persistence of ocean-type chinook salmon stocks will be

largely dependent on the quality and diversity of

mainstem habitats outside of Federal lands. For

ocean-type chinook salmon to persist, the combination of factors that influence stocks over space

and time needs to be addressed simultaneously.

Within the UCRB area, wild and naturally

spawning stocks of ocean-type chinook salmon

will require aggressive and extensive protection

and restoration of mainstem spawning and rearing

habitat and migration corridors to improve the

likelihood of persistence. Management of Federal

lands does not unilaterally influence the quality of

most mainstem habitats, primarily because mainstem areas are profoundly influenced by activities

outside of Federal lands. Mainstem areas might

benefit from land management activities that substantially reduce sediment and ensure an abundant supply of water with suitable chemical and

physical characteristics during key life history

stages. In many cases, however, waters from

Federal lands are obstructed and altered by dams

and impoundments in their lower elevations.

Federal land management does influence mainstem river conditions where tributaries enter

mainstems directly.

Aquatics